Recall that van Fraassen distinguishes two steps in IBE: the comparative and the
ampliative. According to him, the
ampliative step is not justified because the comparative step is circumscribed by the set of available explanations (K).
572) that hypotheses ar confirmed by their consequences does not provide a probabilistic prop for genuinely
ampliative inference.
With this concept in mind, it is by no means difficult to understand the Popper-Miller argument, which can be expressed in the following terms: If the probabilistic support a given evidence e affords a certain hypothesis h were inductive support, then the inductive or
ampliative content of h relative to e would have to be probabilistically supported by e.
Would the inference from the latter to the former still be
ampliative? Sure.
It completely neglects the crucial asymmetry between confirmation, which involves an inference in the formally invalid third figure of the implicative syllogism (this is why inductive inferences are
ampliative and dangerous and why we can be objectively wrong even though we proceed correctly), and refutation, which is in the valid fourth figure, and which gives the modus tollens its privileged position in inductive inference' (|1978~ p.
We only need to confirm some of its concrete consequences because
ampliative inference is considered to be legitimate in the debate between inferentialists and realists.
The magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed an approximately 38.8 mm x 33.1 mm x 36.4 mm lesion in the suprasellar region with an unclear contour and an
ampliative third ventricle which was caused by the tumor compression and invasion [Figure 1]b,[Figure 1]c,[Figure 1]d,[Figure 1]e.
In natural language, argumentation normally rests on
ampliative arguments, that is, arguments the conclusions of which go beyond the premises and are therefore more or less probable or plausible, lacking deductive certainty (Bohman y Rehg, 2014).
AMANDA HICKS, "
Ampliative Inference and the Principle of Sufficient Reason." Adviser: Neil Williams.
The principal deductivist insight here is that since
ampliative (that is, inductive) inferences are invalid, their conclusions are no better supported than unsupported guesses, obtusely resistant to justification but, it is to be hoped, acutely susceptible to refutation.
The principles of biomedical ethics are by nature
ampliative reasoning tools for arriving at conclusions and as such, they have their content-increasing capacities embeddedness within culture.
The prevalence of late positive reactions and evidence against systemic
ampliative allergy.
